Mr. Speaker, first of all, we need more information on the American proposal. We know that international conventions have provisions for the creation of tribunals based on the principle of military law, but at this point in time we do not know exactly what the U.S. is proposing.

Mr. Speaker, we are basing our conclusions on the press release and the statements by the President himself.

Eighty countries lost citizens on September 11, and the entire international community felt the impact of these attacks. It is the entire international community, via the United Nations, which should judge the terrorists.

Does the Prime Minister intend to promote the idea of a special international criminal tribunal mandated to judge the perpetrators of these terrorist attacks?

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that I cannot comment on individual cases, particularly those that are before the courts.

What I can tell him is that it is a priority for my department and for this government to remove as quickly as possible those people who are inadmissible to Canada, especially those who we believe pose a security threat.

Mr. Speaker, the country is watching how well the immigration minister protects us. Certainly the Americans are watching, and the minister has not inspired a lot of confidence. Look at the lineups at the border for example.

How the minister handles refugee Almrei reflects upon our security and our economic interests. What is the minister going to do to fix the system that has allowed Almrei to be accepted first of all as a refugee and then apparently cannot be deported?

Mr. Speaker, we all know that there are people who come to Canada and ask for protection who do not need protection. We also know that there are people who come to Canada who ask for protection and who in fact are inadmissible to Canada. That is what the Immigration and Refugee Board sorts out.

Under the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we have done everything we believe is reasonable to try to make that as fast as possible because the goal is to provide protection only to those people who are in genuine need and to those who are not admissible or not—

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance tried to tell the House that the federal government had increased spending on international development assistance. That is not the case.

Will the Minister of Finance admit, that in real dollars or as a percentage of GDP, the result is the same: international assistance has been cut significantly by this government, between the time it came to power in 1993 and today?

Mr. Speaker, as we all know that CIDA received an increase in the budget of 2000. There was a commitment for an increase in aid levels for the next budget as well. The Prime Minister has been clear many times publicly as has the Minister of Finance. We will wait to see the budget.

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP last month raided the offices of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada on corruption charges.

We know that the minister will give us her standard answer of how she cannot comment because there is an ongoing investigation, but would she tell us what new measures she has taken to prevent corruption in her department?

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member opposite that whenever there are allegations or suggestions of inappropriate behaviour, they are investigated and looked into because we take those kinds of allegations very seriously.

However, I want him to know that when there are allegations made at the immigration and refugee board, the chairman has all the tools necessary to take appropriate action.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we take any allegation and any evidence presented extremely seriously and refer it immediately to the RCMP, which has the responsibility for conducting investigations.

I repeat, if there are any allegations concerning the immigration and refugee board, I know that the chair of the board takes those concerns as seriously as I do. He would also call in the RCMP. He has all the tools necessary, as chair of that independent, quasi judicial board, to take appropriate action.

Mr. Speaker, agriculture was one of the major issues faced at the World Trade Organization meeting in Qatar by some 142 countries last week. Yesterday our Minister for International Trade congratulated the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for his help at that meeting.

Would the minister please indicate to Canadians and to the House how Canadian farmers will benefit from the agreements reached in Qatar?

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister for International Trade said yesterday, we did reach our objectives at the WTO meetings in Doha last week.

There are clear objectives in the ministerial text which will now allow Canada to go ahead and pursue our objectives of the elimination of export subsidies, increased market access for agriculture and agri-food products and substantial reductions in trade and production distorting domestic subsidies.

I want to thank the officials, the industry people and the MPs who were there with us and supporting us.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who repeatedly said in the House that she would listen to the committee considering Bill C-36, that she would listen to the witnesses and respond to public opinion on this matter.

Could she tell the House why today, before the committee, she refused to listen to the many, many Canadians who came before the committee? They asked for a real sunset clause on more than just the two clauses that she has indicated will be subject not to a sunset clause but to some kind of twilight zone into which the minister wants to put these two amendments and which amounts really to a 10 year sunset clause.

Anne McLellanLiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say that again I thank the committee for the work it has done and the many witnesses who have appeared before it.

In fact, the government has listened. One of the things that we heard was that there was concern in and around the operation of two provisions in particular.

Today I announced that the government is willing to provide a sunset clause. I do not know why the hon. member would refer to this as anything less. We are indicating that those two provisions will cease to exist unless members of the House and the Senate make it--

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that it was not just those two clauses that many people wanted sunsetted. People were particularly concerned about the definition of terrorist activity and even as amended, there remain concerns. This would have been one other clause, for example, to which the minister could have given a real sunset clause and did not.

Again I ask the minister, why did she not listen to the committee and to the many witnesses who identified not just those two clauses, but many as being eligible for a real sunset clause?

Anne McLellanLiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that we would sunset definition sections of this legislation is, with all due respect, hard to believe. As the Prime Minister and others have said, the threat of terrorism, the war against terrorism will not be short term. What we all have to understand is that our first obligation is to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. We will not sunset key definitions like terrorist activity that strike at the very heart of that which would destroy, maim and kill innocent people.

Based on today's testimony, the minister has clearly ignored most of the unanimous recommendations from the special Senate committee on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. Those include ignoring the recommendations which would sunset the ability of the minister to control information and sidestep parliamentary watchdogs.

Why has the minister chosen to exempt these hide and seek certificate processes from those which would be sunsetted in Bill C-36?